The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Any Rolleiflex Users/Owners Here?

jlm

Workshop Member
seems like some laggards out there in rolleiflex land...here is one or two with my punky 3.5: tri-x. HC-110.
scanned with the v700 as i recall
 

Cindy Flood

Super Moderator
seems like some laggards out there in rolleiflex land...
True, guilty....some things take time.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:...soon.




here is one or two with my punky 3.5: tri-x. HC-110.
scanned with the v700 as i recall
Nice shots. I especially like #1. The lighting and tones are super.
It is nice to see examples scanned with the V700.
 

PSon

Active member
You will love the camera as John mentioned. I am too a user of the Rolleiflex twin lens.
 
F

fotoyvel

Guest
Tim-- I use one occasionally. Most of my play is done now with digital.
The Rollei TLR will be usable for MANY moons as 120 will be made for years and even then there will b some folks who will make film stock for niche markets...
I find the TLR to be an ideal portrait camera, very good for kids and dogs as it is great for low-level work. It also makes huge files if you scan and work in a digital darkroom and of course in a real darkroom 120 squares are way easier to work with than 35 mm negs.
Square format allows vertical or horizontal crops if you don;t want a square composition. The last Rolleis did NoT have the near-automatic indexing of the earlier ones: the film fits between rollers and as you crank it stops at No. 1. With Rollei cords and the newer Gx you crank the paper leader to match the arrow to the dot on the frame,,, a small point. The last series had TTL meters, way better than the older models with selenium cells that do not work very well. My built-in meter is a bit flaky, so i take along a hand-held, as well. As there are no interchangeable lenses, this remains s a compact package AND people do not seem threatened by it,. Indeed people stop to talk to Rollei carriers...I like ground glass focus and composing.
pick one up or look for a cheaper Ricohflex or something to try TLR work. I would, NOT buy a Seagull TLR for the inflated prices they ask...old Rollei is better and there are still scads of repairers who can tune them up.
Do not pay more for Planar -- the 3.5F Xenotar is equally good. I prefer then 3.5 to the 2.8 lenses which sell at a premium... Earlier Xenars and Tessars are a bit too soft IMO, tho some like them Those cameras are getting REALLY long in the tooth. My later 1965-ish F is 40 years old! Rolleis were a popular with rich hobbyists to the end, a search should find a decent, lightly-used example of any model.
Mike
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Well, finally have some film and scans back from a lab. The transition has been slow for me and the learning curve much steeper than I had anticipated. The good news is, the camera seems to work beautifully. It's a bit difficult to make hard judgements after only 2 rolls, but the only thing I noticed that I need to adjust for is lens flare. I am seeing a bunch and since I've been spoiled by modern lenses, had forgotten it even existed!

In any case, I have a lot more work to do. Especially on the scanning side. The examples below were scanned by the lab at their "large" file size which is the midrange of their scan quality offering. I think the scans could be much better, but it's a start.

p.s. I added the vignetting and now wish I hadn't.
 

Evanjoe610

New member
Tim,

The second shot shows a nice separation of the foreground versus the background. I like the blending of the background into a smooth buttery effect.
Color is nice and saturated. The colors would definitely look brighter and more punchy with transparency film and if you controlled the scanning.

Otherwise, getting adjusted as you stated, what was I experienced in the beginning. Overall nice shots and I love the tropical plants!
Is the camera a 2.8F? Have you tried any filters yet - polarizer?

Evan
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
Thanks Evan! No filters yet. These first few frames were just to be sure the camera operated as advertised, i.e. shutter working and lens/focus aligned etc. I'm not sure the color is accurate and since this is my first time with this film, I'm not sure how much is the film itself or how much is the scan.

I'm thinking that I'll continue my testing with B&W since I can control things a bit better with it. And to be honest, B&W is what I wanted the camera for anyway. So that's my next step.

Tim

p.s. it's a 3.5F
 

Evanjoe610

New member
What type of film were using? Is it Kodak or Fuji? For me negative film tends to be less saturated then transparency, especially when it has been scanned by the photo developer. Maybe its the profile used or the charactertistics of the film. Although transparency has a limited and less forgiving color latitude, I find that I can control my own setup with my scanner. Scanning transparency film is easier then scanning negative film.
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
The film is Kodak Portra 160NC scanned by the lab who did the C-41. The histogram shows that all the scans put the entire image data in the center portion of the data. There were big gaps on either side of both the shadows and the highlights. I think that's a bit unusual and makes for a difficult file to process in post since it's so compressed. If/when I get my own scanner I can explore that a bit more and hopefully yield better results.
 

Evanjoe610

New member
That sounds about correct in regards to having the photo lab do the scanning for you for negative film. I guess that when they scan in the negative for their proofing system, that same image is saved to a PhotoCD disc...

The overall color rendition would be better once you are scanning it yourself. Try a roll of the Kodak 200 Ektachrome transparency film. It is NICE!
 
F

fotoyvel

Guest
Anyone here care to share their opinions of this classic MF film camera? Do you still use it? Would you recommend it?

Thanks!
Tim
Yes the Rolleiflex is a GOOD MF camera and i have used one for several years, tho lately it is tare that i shoot with any film camera (I have some 35s I limber uP too). I have a Rollei 3,5 F WITH XENOTAR KENS, THESE are a but cheaper than those with planar lenses but the results are really comparable. The camera has a 75 mm lens which gives about the same angle f view as a 40 mm in a 35 mm camera (the little rollie 35, also a fixed lens , has a 40 mm lens... hmm)
I find the camera swell for portraits, landscapes and general photography. Forget wildlife,obviously. OTH with close-up lens sets -- clever ones that compensate for parallax in the upper viewing lens, yo can do some great macro work.

Faults?: the meters were great and clever in their day-- most are inaccurate today; Rolleis can get a little creaky in terms of weak shutter springs and grinding film advance, but there are many good repairmen out there who can clean and lube them, and a refurbished machine is worth the money. Film id avail;able tho not so many emulsions as before. I like the chromogenic stuff that is developed in mini-labs using C41 color chemistry or i shoot color neg film. Unless you live in a biggish city you won't find labs that still print, so a scanner is needed, I have used an Epson flatbed that has a 3000 dpi max scan and it is more than capable, but I am not a great scanner! .
Will I sell my baby?" Maybe but right now it is a lot if fun even if it only gets out to take pix every few months or so...
Mike L
 

Geoff

Well-known member
Just found this thread. Big Rollei fan and user here - both film and later digital. Composing on the ground glass is the best - for composition and thinking. I've scanned film with both the Epson 700 and an older Imacon 303. The Epson holds up pretty well - not quite as good, but plenty good enough. Just a bit softer.

Have used a 2.8D (dad bought it new in '55), GX, and later 6000 gear. Can help with questions. Don't underestimate the power the TLR, those lenses and a decent scan. Rollei excelled in their time and still can hold up v.v. well. Here is a wonderful test of the older Rollei up against an Mamiya 7 and a Hassy. remarkable:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html
 
I´m new to this forum. Use mainly a Rolleiflex SL66 with much pleasure. A T-Model is also sitting on the shelf but the shutter needs repair so I can only use it for long-time exposures now.
 
Top